GARBAGE will be holding a packet submission trash tournament on the weekend of February 28 and March 1, 2009 edited by Fred Morlan, Evan Nagler and a third person yet to be determined. This is the same weekend as ACF Regionals.

I am very happy to announce that the inaugural GARBAGE Packet Submission tournament will take place on the weekend of March 1, 2009. What follows is the official global announcement for the tournament with general details and an invitation to submit bids.

Editors

The editors at this time for this event are Evan Nagler, David Seal and Fred Morlan.

Hosting

We are now accepting hosting bids for GARBAGE Packet Submission. We will follow the same hosting guidelines as ACF; for a general overview of what is required to host an ACF tournament, please consult the official ACF Hosting Guidelines regarding the bidding process.

Please note: GARBAGE is not officially affiliated with ACF in the least.

To submit a bid, please email Evan Nagler at [email protected] . We are looking for hosts in all regions at this time. We prefer our event to be hosted at sites that are also hosting ACF Regionals due to the GARBAGE editorial team's desire to encourage participation in top-flight academic events as well.

Fee Structure

GARBAGE follows the ACF discount structure, with the following differences:

* The base fee is $90
* There is no discount for new teams (either to ACF or quizbowl) or high school teams
* The discount for solo teams is reduced to $-40. For teams of two players, the discount is $-20.
* If every eligible member of your GARBAGE team competes in ACF Regionals and stays for the entirety of that event, your team receives a $-10 discount. Your team must have at least one ACF-eligible member to qualify for this discount.

Packet Submission

All experienced teams are required to submit packets for GARBAGE Packet Submission. We will be following ACF guidelines for who must submit packets; for details regarding who is required to submit a packet and what your packet should look like, please consult the official ACF Packet Submission Guidelines. The short version is: if one of your players has competed in an ACF event, academic house written event, NAQT SCT, NAQT ICT, pop culture house written event or TRASH event prior to September 1, 2007, your team must submit a packet.

If you do not make special arrangements with the GARBAGE editorial board and do not submit a packet by Feb. 15, you will not be allowed to play and I will hate you forever. Please follow the formatting rules for packet submission.

Difficulty

GARBAGE Packet Submission is intended as the trash equivalent of a regular-difficulty event, similar to TRASH Regionals. It is intended to be more difficult than the now-defunct TRASH Junior Bird. If you should have any questions about if an answer selection is too difficult, err on the side of ease. You are also encouraged to contact the editorial staff regarding any questions about the appropriateness of your answer selection. As always, you should follow the tremendous question writing guide outlined on the QB Wiki here.

Sports - 5/5
MLB, NBA, NFL, college football & college men's basketball - 3/3
Other sports - 1/1
Your choice – 1/1 (cannot be the same sport more than once)

Video games - 1/1

Extra movies and/or TV – 1/1

Other - 4/4
Includes comics, business/products, trash literature, randomness, cross-genre questions, board & card games, internet trash, etc.
Can include up to an additional 1/1 video games
Can not include additional music or sports questions

Please note: while there is no set rule regarding era for the sports, video game or other portions of the distributions, please make sure at least 50% of the questions cover the past 20 years. Also, please do not over-emphasize a small subject area.

Please follow the subdistributions in your packet. If you do not, you can be charged a penalty of as much as $50 or face an outright rejection of your packet. The more you abandon the subdistribution, the higher your penalty will be. This allows us to differentiate between an oversight in creating your packet and absolute disregard for the subdistributions outlined above.

No theme packets, please. These will be rejected outright.

Wikipedia and plagiarism

If you are found to be plagiarizing questions, including using phrases directly from Wikipedia, iMDB, etc., you will be banned from this event and will be publicly identified as the kind of person who would do this.

Other Stuff

If you have any questions, whatsoever, about this event, please do not hesitate to contact me. Feel free to post in this thread or send me an email at [email protected] .

Special note to the five or so people who were originally working as editors with Fred on the first GARBAGE event: None of those questions will be used in this event. This means you should have no issues playing in this event.

I assume that this, like most trash events, is open eligibility, with no school affiliation required? In other words, ancient people like me can play?

Do you have a timetable in mind for the awarding of hosting bids? I assume you're going to parallel the ACF Regionals timeline, which doesn't require bids to be submitted until Jan 1. However, your first packet deadline is Dec 28. My teammates won't commit to playing until we know where the nearest site will be, but we'd like to hit that early submission deadline if possible.

Is there a way out of this dilemma?

Thanks for running this event.

Brian Weikle
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More, I cannot say.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm really eager to see how it works out and to be working with Evan and David. I'm sure the eventual quality of the tournament can be much more easily attributed to their work than mine.

Coelacanth wrote:I assume that this, like most trash events, is open eligibility, with no school affiliation required? In other words, ancient people like me can play?

This is correct. The field is completely open.

Coelacanth wrote:Do you have a timetable in mind for the awarding of hosting bids? I assume you're going to parallel the ACF Regionals timeline, which doesn't require bids to be submitted until Jan 1. However, your first packet deadline is Dec 28. My teammates won't commit to playing until we know where the nearest site will be, but we'd like to hit that early submission deadline if possible.

Is there a way out of this dilemma?

Thanks for pointing out the issue with the bid deadline. To deal with this, we'll push the first deadline back to Jan. 4. It retains its $30 discount as before.

We're now coming up on the 2nd packet deadline and no sites have been announced.

Is one of the following things happening?

(1) People are submitting packets not caring where/when the tournament will actually be played
(2) People are submitting packets making an implicit assumption that this is taking place the Sunday of ACF Regionals weekend at the same sites (not all of which have yet been announced, if I read that thread correctly)
(3) People are not submitting packets

If (1), wow. If (2), can the putative hosts please post something in this thread (or the Trash section in a separate thread) with location/schedule/field details? If (3), is there some likelihood of this event not actually happening?

Thanks, Fred (and Evan and David!), for your efforts so far to make this happen. I'm just having a hard time motivating my teammates to actually write questions for a tournament that might or might not be happening at a site TBD.

Brian Weikle
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More, I cannot say.

The following hosts have been confirmed:
Midwest: Chicago
Southwest: Tulsa
South: Mississippi State

All three of the above, as far as I know, intend to host the tournament on Sunday after they host ACF Regionals.

Brian, the closest site to you will probably be Chicago.

We are currently seeking hosts in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, West, and Northwest. All the announced hosts of ACF Regionals have been sent emails inviting them to host GARBAGE and asking them to respond; of those, the above have responded affirmatively and Clemson has responded negatively. The other hosts have not replied.

Today is the $0 penalty deadline and, at this point in time, we have all of one packet from teams that are competing. So, if you don't want this canceled, it'd be nice if we received some packets in the near future.

To date, we only have four packets submitted. I thank those teams who have submitted a packet by this time. While we have promises of a few more packets, we haven't seen anything actually indicative that we'll be receiving those.

In the announcement, we state that we won't allow packets submitted after February 15. I'm willing to replace it with a $50 penalty (which replaces the current $30 penalty) if people indicate that they will be submitting packets by February 22.

If we don't receive a working number of packets by the date of February 22, the tournament will be canceled.

To date, we only have four packets submitted. I thank those teams who have submitted a packet by this time. While we have promises of a few more packets, we haven't seen anything actually indicative that we'll be receiving those.

In the announcement, we state that we won't allow packets submitted after February 15. I'm willing to replace it with a $50 penalty (which replaces the current $30 penalty) if people indicate that they will be submitting packets by February 22.

If we don't receive a working number of packets by the date of February 22, the tournament will be canceled.

Also, today is the $30 penalty deadline.

In line with this, if you'd like to freelance us a few questions, we'd be happy to take them.

Penn was thinking of putting forth an optional packet that I'm told is well underway. I'll try to make sure it gets to you later this week. I'm hoping we don't have to pay the penalty since our team would likely be sophomores and freshmen and wouldn't have to submit a packet anyway.

Hilarius Bookbinder wrote:In line with this, if you'd like to freelance us a few questions, we'd be happy to take them.

Any particular categories you are looking for?

Any and all. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Lapego1 wrote:Penn was thinking of putting forth an optional packet that I'm told is well underway. I'll try to make sure it gets to you later this week. I'm hoping we don't have to pay the penalty since our team would likely be sophomores and freshmen and wouldn't have to submit a packet anyway.

Thanks to all of the above people for freelancing and helping out a lot in doing so; thanks to the team who sent in packets for their hard work;special thanks to UMBC and Penn for sending in packets when they didn't have to; thanks to everyone that's playing this for making it possible; and very special thanks to Dan Goff, David Seal and Evan Nagler for carrying my ass through this. Hopefully the tournament is of acceptable quality and that people enjoy playing it.

So, this afternoon I noticed that I apparently failed to save the final version of the Mike Bentley packet, which featured a bunch of proofreading fixes plus headers and numbering. Alternately, the final version got saved in the wrong place. Either way, the one that got sent out shouldn't have been there. I apologize for the error.

Just wanted to say I enjoyed this tournament immensely, and found it to be on par with the most recent CO trash tournament (notably better in some areas, even, if needing a bit of work in others). I want to extend a heartfelt thanks to the editors for producing a trash set that adhered to the principles of good quizbowl, which, for reference, is what all trash tournaments should do.

The areas this tournament was fabulous in were many and numerous, and mostly revolved around reasonable answer selection and well-written questions, etc. The issues mostly revolved around a failure to maintain distribution balance, at the basic level in the worst packets (Sorice's packet, I think, had a tossup on [AN ANSWER I CAN'T ALLUDE TO BECAUSE OF A LATER MIRROR], a [OH GOD WHAT AM I THINKING?!], and [NOOOOOOOO!!!!] as the sports distribution, which is just. . . bad). This also showed up in a subtler but slightly more widespread way in the "secondary" distribution (balancing on time periods, subject matter, etc). This is impossible to really control in a packet submission event, but, to use the Sorice packet as an example again, I think more than half of the tossups were on (or chiefly on) pre-1970s things. The only real issue with the tournament was this kind of stuff, and even then it was minor in all but a couple packets, so again, great job. Oh, and it seemed like the hardest part of the distribution (in terms of dead tossups) was pretty consistently music, but that might have just been subjective for our rooms in given rounds.

(ADMIN: Removed allusions to answers...)

EDIT: Is it really problematic to say what I did? I mean, I didn't realize there was a later mirror (sorry), but what I said was the equivalent of "some packet had two non-western history questions and a current events question instead of the regular history distribution" or something. I don't think that really confers an advantage, but meh.

Last edited by DumbJaques on Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE

-There were a number of repeats, which is inevitable, but bonuses should not ask for the same exact person or thing using pretty much the same clues.

-Obviously a central issue in any packet-submission tourney, but the difficulty swing was at times "eccentric," with some really, in my opinion, non-askable stuff coming up (I mean, not sour grapes either, I got some of it).

-I thought time distribution was pretty solid. I was a little worried that writers would eschew writing about older stuff, but there was a good chunk of it, plus a good mix of recent things too. There were a few NAQT-style current-events type questions, but other than that, the mix was solid.

I appreciate the kind words regarding the quality of the event. I apologize for any repeats and distribution oddities, which came about due to time management and issues thereof. I basically underestimated the point in time where we had to draw a line and start finishing by at least a week. This is utterly my fault and I apologize for it, and also promise that the next time that I'm involved with an event, I'll keep this lesson in mind.

DumbJaques wrote:[T]o use the Sorice packet as an example again, I think more than half of the tossups were on (or chiefly on) pre-1970s things.

I know you don't have the packets yet, but this specific characterization of the Sorice packet is rather inaccurate, as my count is significantly lower than half. The packet was certainly not without problems, but exaggeration of relatively slight transgressions doesn't help us learn from our more important mistakes. (Also, there was another sports tossup which you seem to have forgotten.) IM or email me and I can tell you specifics.

Overall, though, I do agree with your assessment that we failed to keep alternative distribution in mind to the extent which we needed to. We certainly didn't ignore it altogether, though.

As Fred said, we did wait rather too late to start doing the real work, and we weren't organized enough by my estimation. Should I do another tournament, I would strongly consider doing the writing work myself or with other writers rather than relying on submissions. By using submissions, we tried too hard to preserve the answer space suggested by the submissions, and this affected the overall distribution. Also, choosing which of ten submitted questions on the same thing to keep is aggravating, and if by writing in-house I can prevent all of that, I'd be tempted to do it.

DumbJaques wrote:...the worst packets (Sorice's packet, I think, had a tossup on [AN ANSWER I CAN'T ALLUDE TO BECAUSE OF A LATER MIRROR], a [OH GOD WHAT AM I THINKING?!], and [NOOOOOOOO!!!!] as the sports distribution, which is just. . . bad).

There was another one that you've neglected to partially reveal to the mirror field; I think it doesn't suit whatever argument you're making here. But anyway, what do you want me (or anyone) to say? The topics are four important answers from different major sports and fit the submission distribution to the letter, so, I mean, learn this shit? What are you even complaining about? The way you've phrased this complaint is just. . . bad.

DumbJaques wrote:...Sorice packet... more than half of the tossups were on (or chiefly on) pre-1970s things.

YOUR ARE WRONG. If I'm extremely generous and count every question that even mention a pre-70's clues or is on something that existed before the '70's or something, this is at absolute most 8/20. An even-handed account would give a number like 5/20 or 4/16. That seems an eminently reasonable number to me (and, really, should to anyone.)

There was another one that you've neglected to partially reveal to the mirror field; I think it doesn't suit whatever argument you're making here. But anyway, what do you want me (or anyone) to say? The topics are four important answers from different major sports and fit the submission distribution to the letter, so, I mean, learn this shit? What are you even complaining about? The way you've phrased this complaint is just. . . bad.

I don't know why it's bad. I didn't mean to imply that OH NO THE SORICE PACKET WAS TERRIBLE, so I'm sorry if I did that; obectively, people at my site found the packet less accessible and the collective response was that it seemed to skew a lot older. Since the packets can't be discussed and aren't available it's hard to say anything more than my general recollection, which is probably incorrect. Maybe our reader just skipped a sports tossup, but I didn't think they fit the distribution to the letter. I can't really make my point without discussing subcategories, but if the distribution was meant to 3/3 "big" sports, I didn't think it hit it, that's all. It's not directed at you, anyway, dude, I'm not sure why you're getting so upset, as you presumably submitted the exact 5/5 requested by the editors and they assembled the final packet.

If I'm extremely generous and count every question that even mention a pre-70's clues or is on something that existed before the '70's or something, this is at absolute most 8/20. An even-handed account would give a number like 5/20 or 4/16. That seems an eminently reasonable number to me (and, really, should to anyone.)

Ok, sorry if I'm mistaken on that. I shouldn't have posted that without looking the questions over. Again, it's not a personal indictment or anything - I just used the first example I could recall to illustrate what I thought was the only really slightly pronounced issue with a great set, and the final secondary distribution can't be controlled by the packet author, who submits the exact requirements, but by the editors compiling the final 20/20. I apologize for phrasing it as if it was directed at you.

Overall, though, I do agree with your assessment that we failed to keep alternative distribution in mind to the extent which we needed to. We certainly didn't ignore it altogether, though.

I certainly didn't think you did; I hope my post didn't imply that. The fact that the tournament was so good that secondary distribution being uneven in some packets is the first thing that even registers as an issue is a testament to the effort and accomplishment of you, Fred, and the other editors.

Particularly since we're planning on running a trash tournament, I'm interested about your conclusions regarding submissions. I had thought that it perhaps diminished interest among attending teams and was considering running a house-written or half-packet submission event, and hadn't even considered your point about maintaining the desired distribution, sub-distribution, etc. I'd be more interested in what exactly what you guys encountered and what all the editors think of this (perhaps trash is just something that always works better as a house-written affair), but perhaps it would have to wait until after the final mirror.

Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE

Your criticism is bad because, as near as I can tell, its crux is that a packet with four sports tossups from disparate important sports that fit the posted distribution to a "t" adduces a claim of subdistributional imbalance. I hope we can agree that that's not a valid example of imbalance (at least, not by any definition I'm acquainted with.)
Or, at least, I thought that's what you were saying. Through some alchemical combination of my misunderstanding and your equivocation, it now seems that your actual claim is that this one packet (and maybe others?) might not have had as much "big three" sports as you would've liked. However, this packet did fit the distribution and contained what I'd consider a reasonable amount of big three sports (even considering only the tossups,) so I'm not quite sure what you were expecting or whence your expectation that someone else is supposed to cleave to whatever that was. Sorry, dude!

DumbJaques wrote:Ok, sorry if I'm mistaken on that [claim that over half your packet was about pre-70's stuff]. I shouldn't have posted that without looking the questions over.